Queen (D.J.) v. Cognos Inc., (1993) 147 N.R. 169 (SCC)

JudgeLa Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateJanuary 29, 1992
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1993), 147 N.R. 169 (SCC);JE 93-270;[1993] CarswellOnt 801;[1993] SCJ No 3 (QL);1993 CanLII 146 (SCC);[1993] 1 SCR 87;99 DLR (4th) 626;147 NR 169;14 CCLT (2d) 113;37 ACWS (3d) 1304;15 CR (4th) 87;60 OAC 1;45 CCEL 153;[1993] ACS no 3

Queen v. Cognos Inc. (1993), 147 N.R. 169 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Douglas J. Queen (appellant) v. Cognos Incorporated (respondent)

(No. 22004)

Indexed As: Queen (D.J.) v. Cognos Inc.

Supreme Court of Canada

La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ.

January 21, 1993.

Summary:

Queen, a chartered accountant, applied for a job to work on a computer project with Cognos Inc. He was given an interview wherein various aspects of the project were discussed. He was not told that funding for the project had not yet been approved by head office. He was offered a managerial job on the project, which required him to move from Calgary to Ottawa. He signed an em­ployment contract which provided, inter alia, that his job could be terminated on one month's notice or he could be reassigned to another job without a salary reduction on one month's notice. Within five months of his move, head office considered and cur­tailed the project. He was reassigned to another job and terminated after 1½ years' employment. He sued Cognos Inc. for dam­ages for negligent misrepresentation, claim­ing that he only accepted the job because of the representations made to him in the inter­view.

The Ontario High Court of Justice, per White, J., in a decision reported (1987), 63 O.R.(2d) 389; 18 C.C.E.L. 146, allowed the action. Cognos Inc. appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported (1990), 38 O.A.C. 180; 74 O.R.(2d) 176; 69 D.L.R.(4th) 288, allowed the appeal, set aside the trial decision and dismissed Queen's action. Queen appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the decision of the trial judge.

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2508

Misrepresentation - Negligent misrepre­sentation - Queen was interviewed for a managerial job on a computer project - During the interview the project was dis­cussed, but he was not told that the project funding was not yet approved - He was offered the job - The employment contract provided for termination or reassignment on one month's notice - He moved from Calgary to Ottawa and gave up a secure well-paying job to work on the project - Within five months the project was cur­tailed - He sued for damages for negligent misrepresentation - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the action, holding that the situation was not one of concurrency; rather the tort was independent of the contract and the liability was not limited by the exclusion clauses in the contract - See paragraph 1.

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2508

Misrepresentation - Negligent misrepre­sentation - The Supreme Court of Canada referred to five general requirements for a successful action for negligent misrepre­sentation (Hedley Byrne doctrine) - See paragraph 33 - The court thereafter dis­cussed in detail the application of this doctrine to representations made by employers during pre-contractual negotia­tions - The court also discussed the situa­tion where an employment contract is signed subsequent to negligent misrepre­sentations - See paragraphs 34 to 95.

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2515

Misrepresentation - Concurrent liability in contract and tort - [See both Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2508 ].

Cases Noticed:

BG Checo International Ltd. v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1993), 147 N.R. 81 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1 et seq.].

Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1964] A.C. 465 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 18 et seq.].

Burrows v. Burke (1984), 49 O.R.(2d) 76 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Carman Construction Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. and C.P. Rail, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 958; 42 N.R. 147, refd to. [paras. 25, 30, 37, 38, 46, 61, 84, 86, 88].

Welbridge Holdings Ltd. v. Metropolitan Corp. of Greater Winnipeg, [1971] S.C.R. 957, refd to. [para. 30].

J. Nunes Diamonds Ltd. v. Dominion Electric Protection Co., [1972] S.C.R. 769, refd to. [paras. 30, 80-83].

Rivtow Marine Ltd. v. Washington Iron Works, [1974] S.C.R. 1189, refd to. [para. 30].

Hodgins v. Hydro-Electric Commission of Nepean (Township), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 501; 6 N.R. 451, refd to. [paras. 30, 55].

Porky Packers Ltd. v. The Pas (Town), [1977] 1 S.C.R. 51; 7 N.R. 569, refd to. [para. 30].

Haig v. Bamford et al., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 466; 9 N.R. 43, refd to. [para. 30].

Mason (V.K.) Construction Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia and Courtot Investments Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 271; 58 N.R. 195; 8 O.A.C. 381; 116 D.L.R.(4th) 598; 35 R.P.R. 118, refd to. [paras. 30, 37, 59].

Rainbow Industrial Caterers Ltd. et al. v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 3; [1991] 6 W.W.R. 385; 126 N.R. 354; 3 B.C.A.C. 1; 7 W.A.C. 1; 8 C.C.L.T.(2d) 225; 59 B.C.L.R.(2d) 129, refd to. [paras. 30, 37].

Steer v. Averovox Inc. (1984), 65 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 147 A.P.R. 91 (T.D.), refd to. [paras. 31, 75].

Wooldridge v. Nickerson (H.B.) & Sons Ltd. and Canso Seafoods Ltd. (1980), 40 N.S.R.(2d) 388; 73 A.P.R. 388; 115 D.L.R.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 31, 55].

Williams v. School District No. 63 (Saa­nich) (1986), 11 C.C.E.L. 233 (B.C.S.C.), affd. (1987), 17 C.C.E.L. 257 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 31, 71, 72].

Grenier v. Timmins Board of Education (1984), 26 A.C.W.S.(2d) 285 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [paras. 31, 59].

Pettit v. Prince George & District Credit Union (1991), 35 C.C.E.L. 140 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

Roy v. B.N.P.P. Regional Police Commis­sion (1986), 72 N.B.R.(2d) 19; 183 A.P.R. 19; 15 C.C.E.L. 167 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31].

Esso Petroleum Co. v. Mardon, [1976] 2 All E.R. 5 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 37, 47].

Sodd Corp. Inc. v. Tessis (1977), 17 O.R.(2d) 158 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Kingu v. Walmar Ventures Ltd. (1986), 38 C.C.L.T. 51 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse and Cordon, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147; 69 N.R. 321; 75 N.S.R.(2d) 109; 186 A.P.R. 109; 42 R.P.R. 161, refd to. [paras. 39, 41, 80, 83, 92].

Caparo Industries v. Dickman et al., [1990] 1 All E.R. 568; 108 N.R. 81 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 45].

Mutual Life and Citizen's Assurance Co. v. Evatt, [1971] A.C. 793 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

Howard Marine and Dredging Co. v. Ogden (A.) & Sons (Excavations) Ltd., [1978] Q.B. 574 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Shaddock & Associates Pty. Ltd. v. Parra­matta City Council (1981), 150 C.L.R. 225 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

Blair v. Canada Trust Co. (1986), 38 C.C.L.T. 300 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

Koch v. Nelson Lumber Co. (1980), 2 Sask.R. 303; 13 C.C.L.T. 201 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Fine's Flowers Ltd. v. General Accident Assurance Co. (1974), 5 O.R.(2d) 137 (H.C.), affd. (1977), 17 O.R.(2d) 529 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

Hendrick v. De Marsh and Brennan et al. (1984), 45 O.R.(2d) 463, affd. (1986), 13 O.A.C. 62; 54 O.R.(2d) 185 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 59, 75].

Anderson (W.B.) & Sons Ltd. v. Rhodes (Liverpool) Ltd., [1967] 2 All E.R. 850 (Liverpool Assizes), refd to. [para. 59].

Hayward v. Mellick (1984), 45 O.R.(2d) 110, refd to. [para. 61].

Datile Financial Corp. v. Royal Trust Corp. of Canada (1991), 5 O.R.(3d) 358 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [paras. 71, 72, 75].

Foster Advertising Ltd. v. Keenberg and Manitoba (1987), 45 Man.R.(2d) 1; 38 C.C.L.T. 309 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 71, 72].

Andronyk v. Williams et al. (1985), 36 Man.R.(2d) 161; 35 C.C.L.T. 38 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 71, 72].

Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 v. San Sebastian Pty. Ltd., [1983] 2 N.S.W.L.R. 268 (C.A.), affd. (1986), 68 A.L.R. 161 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 74].

BG Checo International Ltd. v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1990), 44 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

Banque Financière de la Cité SA v. West­gate Insurance Co., [1989] 2 All E.R. 952, affd. [1990] 2 All E.R. 947 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 75].

Doherty et al. v. Allen, Allen's Service Station Ltd. and Irving Oil Ltd. (1988), 94 N.B.R.(2d) 74; 239 A.P.R. 74; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 746 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

Carman Construction Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. and C.P. Rail, (1981), 33 O.R.(2d) 472 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (7th Ed. 1987), pp. 96-104 and 614 [para. 55].

Klar, Lewis N., Tort Law (1991), pp. 159, 160 [para. 55]; 162 [para. 37].

Linden, Allen M., Canadian Tort Law (4th Ed. 1988), pp. 105-119 [para. 55]; 400-404 [para. 47].

Counsel:

Peter J. Bishop and Tom Brooker, for the appellant;

Charles T. Hackland and Mark Josselyn, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Peter J. Bishop & Associates, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 29, 1992, before La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on Jan­uary 21, 1993, including the following opin­ions:

La Forest, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) - see para­graph 1;

Iacobucci, J., concurring reasons (Sopin­ka, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 2 to 95;

McLachlin, J., concurring reasons - see paragraphs 96 to 103;

Stevenson, J., took no part in the judg­ment.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1231 practice notes
  • Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. McKinnon, 2013 ABQB 371
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • June 25, 2013
    ...22, refd to. [para. 13]. Royal Bank v. Persaud, 1995 CanLII 9055 (Alta. Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 13]. Queen (D.J.) v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87; 147 N.R. 169; 60 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 13]. Bevan v. Anderson and Peace River Sand & Gravel Co., [1957] A.J. No. 76, refd to. [......
  • 1688782 Ontario Inc. v. Maple Leaf Foods Inc., 2020 SCC 35
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • November 6, 2020
    ...v. Perthen, 2007 BCCA 313, 243 B.C.A.C. 135; Arora v. Whirlpool Canada LP, 2013 ONCA 657, 118 O.R. (3d) 115; Queen v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87; Kamloops v. Nielson, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2. By Karakatsanis J. (dissenting) Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728; Deloitte &am......
  • Motkoski Holdings Ltd. v. Yellowhead (County), 2010 ABCA 72
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • March 5, 2010
    ...[para. 42]. R. v. Hodson (B.S.) (2001), 281 A.R. 76; 248 W.A.C. 76; 2001 ABCA 111, refd to. [para. 42]. Queen (D.J.) v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87; 147 N.R. 169; 60 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. PD Management Ltd. v. Chemposite Inc. et al. (2006), 231 B.C.A.C. 283; 381 W.A.C. 283; 58 D.L.R......
  • Kelly v. Lundgard,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • January 4, 1999
    ...256]. ter Neuzen - see Neuzen v. Korn. Kelly v. Lundgard et al., [1996] A.J. No. 672, refd to. [para. 16]. Queen (D.J.) v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87; 147 N.R. 169 ; 60 O.A.C. 1 , refd to. [paras. 20, 104, Schrump v. Koot (1977), 18 O.R.(2d) 337 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 25, 266]. J......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1111 cases
  • Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. McKinnon, 2013 ABQB 371
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • June 25, 2013
    ...22, refd to. [para. 13]. Royal Bank v. Persaud, 1995 CanLII 9055 (Alta. Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 13]. Queen (D.J.) v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87; 147 N.R. 169; 60 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 13]. Bevan v. Anderson and Peace River Sand & Gravel Co., [1957] A.J. No. 76, refd to. [......
  • 1688782 Ontario Inc. v. Maple Leaf Foods Inc., 2020 SCC 35
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • November 6, 2020
    ...v. Perthen, 2007 BCCA 313, 243 B.C.A.C. 135; Arora v. Whirlpool Canada LP, 2013 ONCA 657, 118 O.R. (3d) 115; Queen v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87; Kamloops v. Nielson, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2. By Karakatsanis J. (dissenting) Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728; Deloitte &am......
  • Motkoski Holdings Ltd. v. Yellowhead (County), 2010 ABCA 72
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • March 5, 2010
    ...[para. 42]. R. v. Hodson (B.S.) (2001), 281 A.R. 76; 248 W.A.C. 76; 2001 ABCA 111, refd to. [para. 42]. Queen (D.J.) v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87; 147 N.R. 169; 60 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. PD Management Ltd. v. Chemposite Inc. et al. (2006), 231 B.C.A.C. 283; 381 W.A.C. 283; 58 D.L.R......
  • Kelly v. Lundgard,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • January 4, 1999
    ...256]. ter Neuzen - see Neuzen v. Korn. Kelly v. Lundgard et al., [1996] A.J. No. 672, refd to. [para. 16]. Queen (D.J.) v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87; 147 N.R. 169 ; 60 O.A.C. 1 , refd to. [paras. 20, 104, Schrump v. Koot (1977), 18 O.R.(2d) 337 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 25, 266]. J......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (October 3 - 7, 2022)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • October 11, 2022
    ...SCC 42, Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959, McCreight v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 ONCA 483, Queen v Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87, Deloitte & Touche v. Livent Inc. (Receiver of), 2017 SCC 63, Barkley v. Tier 1 Capital Management Inc., 2018 ONSC 1956, aff'd 2019 ONCA 54 ......
  • Top 5 Civil Appeals from the Court of Appeal (June 2012)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • June 20, 2012
    ...requirements of proof required to establish the tort of negligent representation as set out in the case of the Queen v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87. Applying that test on the Rule 20 motion, the motion judge correctly cited the special relevance of the fourth criterion: that the represe......
  • Defence + Indemnity: April 2018 - II. Liability Issues C.
    • Canada
    • JD Supra Canada
    • May 29, 2018
    ...(CanLII) at para. 49, [2014] 1 SCR 87; Windsor v Canadian Pacific Railway, 2014 ABCA 108 (CanLII) at para. 13, 94 Alta LR (5th) 301, 572 AR 317. Parties to a summary disposition application are expected to put their “best foot forward”, meaning that gaps in the record do not necessarily pre......
  • Summary Judgment Motion In Actions For Wrongful Dismissal Started Under The Simplified Procedure Rule: A New Way Forward
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • March 7, 2017
    ...dealt with quickly and efficiently. Indeed, this approach has been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 1 SCR 87, ("Hryniak") and other decisions which have encouraged utilizing summary judgment motions as a means to obtain timely and just adjudication of clai......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
113 books & journal articles
  • Class Reunion: Revisiting Class Action Justification After Twenty Years
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 7-1, October 2011
    • October 1, 2011
    ...Carey Canada Inc, [1990] 2 SCR 959. 44 Chief Justice Winkler relied on Parna v G & S Properties Ltd, [1971] SCR 306; Queen v Cognos Inc, [1993] 1 SCR 87 [Cognos]; and Hercules Management Ltd v Ernst & Young, [1997] 2 SCR 165. 45 Bre-X–Pleadings, above note 8 at 794 [emphasis added]. 46 Ibid......
  • The Short End of the Stick: Bolstering Legal Protections for Short Sellers in Ontario’s Secondary Market
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 17-1, August 2021
    • August 1, 2021
    ...constituent elements of fraudulent misrepresentation were set out in Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 at para 87. 21 Queen v Cognos Inc, [1993] 1 SCR 87, 99 DLR (4th) 626 [Cognos]. 22 Ibid at para 34 as cited in Perell, above note 11 at 3 (emphasis added). 23 Carom v Bre-X Minerals Ltd (2000),......
  • Access to Justice: An Objective Or Incidental Effect of Class Actions?
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 17-1, August 2021
    • August 1, 2021
    ...constituent elements of fraudulent misrepresentation were set out in Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 at para 87. 21 Queen v Cognos Inc, [1993] 1 SCR 87, 99 DLR (4th) 626 [Cognos]. 22 Ibid at para 34 as cited in Perell, above note 11 at 3 (emphasis added). 23 Carom v Bre-X Minerals Ltd (2000),......
  • Revisiting Class Counsel Fee Approvals: Towards Presumptive Validity of Contingency Fee Agreements
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 17-1, August 2021
    • August 1, 2021
    ...constituent elements of fraudulent misrepresentation were set out in Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 at para 87. 21 Queen v Cognos Inc, [1993] 1 SCR 87, 99 DLR (4th) 626 [Cognos]. 22 Ibid at para 34 as cited in Perell, above note 11 at 3 (emphasis added). 23 Carom v Bre-X Minerals Ltd (2000),......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT